You are here: Home » PTI Stories » National » News
Business Standard

Loss of telephone cables: No relief by HC to telephone officer

Press Trust of India  |  Mumbai 

The has refused to interfere with the decision of authorities to compulsorily retire a junior telecom officer in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd after a departmental inquiry held him guilty in a case of loss of telephone cables.

"No case has been made out by the petitioner to cause interference by this (High) in exercise of its writ jurisdiction... The petition is dismissed," Justices Naresh Patil and Prakash Naik said in a recent judgement.



The petitioner, Prakash Tyagi, joined services as Junior Telecom Officer in the erstwhile Telephone in 1979. By an order dated February 4, 1988, he was placed under suspension, as a departmental enquiry was ordered on account of missing 600 metres of cable.

The charges mentioned in the charge-sheet issued in 1989 related to loss of telephone cable and other related matters.

An FIR was lodged with Juhu Police Station on February 9, 1988 in connection with the incident.

The department alleged that the petitioner, while working as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO), had not laid cables of about 600 metres, but created record showing that he had executed the work. The un-utilised stock of cable thus remained unaccounted for, according to the department.

The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who held a probe and filed a report on January 7, 1991, holding the petitioner guilty of missing cables mentioned in charges 1 to 4 in the chargesheet, while exonerating him from two other charges.

Petitioner's contention was that the Enquiry Officer has not given any reason as to why he had recorded finding of guilt in respect of charges 1 to 4 in the chargesheet. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order on August 17, 1995, compulsorily retiring the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an appeal on October 18, 1995,

before Appellate Authority against the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him but it was rejected in August 1997. He had argued that he was acquitted by a Magistrate in March 1996 after a full trial. He then filed a review petition which too was rejected by the Competent Authority in 1998.

The aggrieved petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which rejected his plea. He then challenged the CAT order in the High Court.

The High was of the view that all the authorities had concurrently held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.

The HC further held that the CAT in detail had scanned the material referred to in the charges, considered the pleadings of the parties, the stand taken by the petitioner and had upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

Therefore, the bench refused to give relief to the petitioner and dismissed his petition.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Loss of telephone cables: No relief by HC to telephone officer

The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with the decision of authorities to compulsorily retire a junior telecom officer in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd after a departmental inquiry held him guilty in a case of loss of telephone cables. "No case has been made out by the petitioner to cause interference by this (High) court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction... The petition is dismissed," Justices Naresh Patil and Prakash Naik said in a recent judgement. The petitioner, Prakash Tyagi, joined services as Junior Telecom Officer in the erstwhile Mumbai Telephone in 1979. By an order dated February 4, 1988, he was placed under suspension, as a departmental enquiry was ordered on account of missing 600 metres of cable. The charges mentioned in the charge-sheet issued in 1989 related to loss of telephone cable and other related matters. An FIR was lodged with Juhu Police Station on February 9, 1988 in connection with the incident. The department alleged that the petitioner, The has refused to interfere with the decision of authorities to compulsorily retire a junior telecom officer in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd after a departmental inquiry held him guilty in a case of loss of telephone cables.

"No case has been made out by the petitioner to cause interference by this (High) in exercise of its writ jurisdiction... The petition is dismissed," Justices Naresh Patil and Prakash Naik said in a recent judgement.

The petitioner, Prakash Tyagi, joined services as Junior Telecom Officer in the erstwhile Telephone in 1979. By an order dated February 4, 1988, he was placed under suspension, as a departmental enquiry was ordered on account of missing 600 metres of cable.

The charges mentioned in the charge-sheet issued in 1989 related to loss of telephone cable and other related matters.

An FIR was lodged with Juhu Police Station on February 9, 1988 in connection with the incident.

The department alleged that the petitioner, while working as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO), had not laid cables of about 600 metres, but created record showing that he had executed the work. The un-utilised stock of cable thus remained unaccounted for, according to the department.

The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who held a probe and filed a report on January 7, 1991, holding the petitioner guilty of missing cables mentioned in charges 1 to 4 in the chargesheet, while exonerating him from two other charges.

Petitioner's contention was that the Enquiry Officer has not given any reason as to why he had recorded finding of guilt in respect of charges 1 to 4 in the chargesheet. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order on August 17, 1995, compulsorily retiring the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an appeal on October 18, 1995,

before Appellate Authority against the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him but it was rejected in August 1997. He had argued that he was acquitted by a Magistrate in March 1996 after a full trial. He then filed a review petition which too was rejected by the Competent Authority in 1998.

The aggrieved petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which rejected his plea. He then challenged the CAT order in the High Court.

The High was of the view that all the authorities had concurrently held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.

The HC further held that the CAT in detail had scanned the material referred to in the charges, considered the pleadings of the parties, the stand taken by the petitioner and had upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

Therefore, the bench refused to give relief to the petitioner and dismissed his petition.
image
Business Standard
177 22

Loss of telephone cables: No relief by HC to telephone officer

The has refused to interfere with the decision of authorities to compulsorily retire a junior telecom officer in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd after a departmental inquiry held him guilty in a case of loss of telephone cables.

"No case has been made out by the petitioner to cause interference by this (High) in exercise of its writ jurisdiction... The petition is dismissed," Justices Naresh Patil and Prakash Naik said in a recent judgement.

The petitioner, Prakash Tyagi, joined services as Junior Telecom Officer in the erstwhile Telephone in 1979. By an order dated February 4, 1988, he was placed under suspension, as a departmental enquiry was ordered on account of missing 600 metres of cable.

The charges mentioned in the charge-sheet issued in 1989 related to loss of telephone cable and other related matters.

An FIR was lodged with Juhu Police Station on February 9, 1988 in connection with the incident.

The department alleged that the petitioner, while working as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO), had not laid cables of about 600 metres, but created record showing that he had executed the work. The un-utilised stock of cable thus remained unaccounted for, according to the department.

The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who held a probe and filed a report on January 7, 1991, holding the petitioner guilty of missing cables mentioned in charges 1 to 4 in the chargesheet, while exonerating him from two other charges.

Petitioner's contention was that the Enquiry Officer has not given any reason as to why he had recorded finding of guilt in respect of charges 1 to 4 in the chargesheet. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order on August 17, 1995, compulsorily retiring the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an appeal on October 18, 1995,

before Appellate Authority against the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on him but it was rejected in August 1997. He had argued that he was acquitted by a Magistrate in March 1996 after a full trial. He then filed a review petition which too was rejected by the Competent Authority in 1998.

The aggrieved petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which rejected his plea. He then challenged the CAT order in the High Court.

The High was of the view that all the authorities had concurrently held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved.

The HC further held that the CAT in detail had scanned the material referred to in the charges, considered the pleadings of the parties, the stand taken by the petitioner and had upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

Therefore, the bench refused to give relief to the petitioner and dismissed his petition.

image
Business Standard
177 22

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard